You might remember that the Democrat, while seeking to become the first person from her party — and first woman — ever elected Pennsylvania’s attorney general, was not exactly shy in hinting that maybe the investigation into the tawdry Jerry Sandusky scandal was not handled appropriately.

In her zeal for elected office, Kane took every opportunity to intimate her belief that Gov. Tom Corbett dragged his feet in investigating Sandusky back when he headed the A.G.’s office because he feared the repercussions as he ran for governor.

Kane vowed to investigate her predecessor and the way his office handled the Sandusky probe. After her historic win, she did just that. Last week she delivered the results of the probe, handled by former federal prosecutor and Widener law professor Geoffrey Moulton.

Advertisement

Moulton’s conclusion? There was no indication that politics played any role in the way the attorney general’s office went about building the case against Sandusky.

Case closed?

Uh, not exactly.

Kane apparently could not resist taking one more shot at the man who held the attorney general’s post before her.

In her comments at a Harrisburg press conference, she cited an ‘inexcusable lack of urgency in charging and stopping a serial child predator.”

She then doubled-down while in front of the microphone by alleging that foot-dragging by Corbett and his investigators gave Sandusky time to inflict his heinous actions on two more young victims.

The only problem with that is there is no hint of that in Mouton’s report. The longtime prosecutors and investigators who handled the probe vehemently denied the allegation and asked her to produce proof.

A day later Kane was backtracking, admitting she was wrong in her assertion that the two young men leveled accusations against Sandusky after the prove was initiated.

This is not the first time Kane has been in the spotlight, with a less than flattering reflection. We criticized her decision, again announced during a highly publicized press conference, that she would not defend the state’s same-sex marriage ban, because she found it “wholly” unconstitutional. We appreciated her candidness, if not her belief that she could pick and choose which laws she would enforce.

Then came the ruckus over her decision to deep-six another investigation with its roots in Corbett’s time as attorney general, an undercover sting that seemed to show a series of Democratic Philadelphia politicians accepting cash and other favors from an undercover agent. She found the case “fatally flawed.” Again those involved in those cases bristled.

The Sandusky scandal cast a pall over the entire state, leaving legendary football coach Joe Paterno as an outcast and besmirching the reputation of a university that will take decades to remove.

Much like Sandusky’s victims, Penn State seems to be forgotten in all the finger-pointing done by politicians looking to make hay out of human tragedy.

We give Kane credit for raising the questions concerning the way the Sandusky case was handled. But the way she repeatedly trotted them out on the campaign trail, while an effective political tool, leaves a bad taste in our mouths.

The wheels of justice move slowly. After her performance last week, again attacking Corbett and alleging “inexplicable delays” in the investigation and suggesting more innocent children may have become victims in the meantime, apparently not slow enough for Kane.